THE REVISED & UPDATED FINLEY AWARDS
Sat, 27 Mar 2004, 09:37 amMelz9 posts in thread
THE REVISED & UPDATED FINLEY AWARDS
Sat, 27 Mar 2004, 09:37 amTHE ITA COMMITTEE HAS REVISED THE FINLEY AWARDS
The ITA Committee is proud to announce its completely revised and updated Finley Awards adjudication system.
As posted on the ITA webpage, and in the ITA Link newsletter, the ITA Committee has been looking very closely at the adjudication process. We are aware that there have been problems with the system, we have listened to the feedback, and we have determined to make changes. No system will ever be 100% perfect, and we'll never please all the people all the time, but we believe that attempting change is better than doing nothing at all.
The major problem with the old system was a lack of both accountability and standardised marking. The entered productions could not be assessed in a standard way because all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. Three random adjudicators (from a pool of eleven) were sent to each entered production. The adjudicators individually scored the production, sent their marks to a coordinator, and never had to justify or discuss them again.
Adjudicators held two meetings per year. Invariably, because of the number of people involved, not all adjudicators were always in attendance at these meetings. This didn't matter much because discussion of plays and marks was rarely, if ever, entered into. The problem was that all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. They couldn't discuss them if they didn't see them.
To be fair, it's impossible for 11 adjudicators to see every play. In the distant past there was a team of three professional (ie paid) adjudicators who DID see every play and could thus compare them. Unfortunately, it didn't work in practice since adjudicators kept missing productions because of professional engagements. The only alternative at the time was to establish a pool of volunteer adjudicators. However, because of this, standardised marking became a casualty. Statistical attempts were made to "average" the marks but this was a far from ideal situation.
Ideally, if all the adjudicators saw all the productions, met regularly and discussed and justified their scores, perception of, and trust in the awards would improve dramatically. Realistically however, it's close to impossible for all 11 adjudicators to see EVERY production. Quite apart from the logistics of such an exercise, it's sincerely doubtful each club would gladly give away so many free tickets.
Our solution is to use a small, dedicated team of adjudicators. A team of four volunteer adjudicators will cover EVERY production, with a guarantee that each production will have at least three adjudicators in attendance. Shows will be discussed at regular meetings and marks will be justified & tabulated. Candidates for Adjudicators' Certificates would be noted throughout the year, instead of the previous end of the year, "Who wants to propose an award?" The adjudicators may not always agree but at least discussion is held. It's a better system than no discussion at all.
At each meeting, all marks will be put on the table and every adjudicator will be accountable for the marks that they have given. If an adjudicator has scored a play markedly differently to that of the other adjudicators, then that adjudicator will need to justify their marks. This process will allow for marks to be changed if the adjudicators feel that it is necessary to do so, after collaboration with the other adjudicators. Among other benefits this allows for adjudicators to be able to accurately and confidently produce a top ten plays list – as they have all seen and assessed all of the plays.
Because of the full schedule, and the necessary perception of lack of bias, none of the four adjudicators will be permitted to direct or produce a Finley-entered play during that year's term. If a club enters a play, and one of the adjudicators is actively involved in that club, they can see and mark the play but the other three adjudicators will write the comments to the club. There is no reason why all four couldn't judge the play, because all marks will be open and accountable. If an adjudicator is performing in an production, they obviously cannot mark that production. The other three adjudicators will score the production and the fourth will be ineligible for any individual awards.
Obviously this decision was painful because it meant cutting back on the number of adjudicators, all of whom we respect, admire and consider friends. This decision was made somewhat easier because as it was necessary to eliminate adjudicators who were directing (or otherwise unavailable for the entire year) it left us with a much smaller pool.
The adjudicators for 2004 are Jarrod Buttery, Sue Hicks, Kerri Hilton and Andrew Round. They represent a spread of experience and skills. We would be extremely pleased to hear from any adjudicators who would be interested in adjudicating within the new system in 2005. The new system is extremely demanding for an adjudicator, but we hope extremely rewarding as well.
We apologise for the inconvenience of making this change after the adjudication year has started and would like to assure all clubs and all entered productions that they have not been disadvantaged. The four adjudicators have seen all of the entered productions this year. All productions have been adjudicated using the same - new - system.
We would like to emphasise that this was not a rushed decision. Of course, if you do something too slowly, you're dragging your tail; if you do something too quickly, it's a knee-jerk response. However, the committee has been observing the Finley debate and discussing possibilities since January's Awards Night, and in earnest since the February AGM elected a new committee. The Finley Awards were thoroughly discussed at the March Committee Meeting - the first meeting of the new committee. The discussion went around the table. Every committee member was asked for their opinions and given the opportunity to speak on the proposed changes. When it came to a vote, the new system was overwhelmingly endorsed - no committee member voted against it. The entire committee recognised the need for improvement in the system, and acted to swiftly to implement the changes.
A second problem is that bank rates over the last few years have meant that the original Finley bequest (and the prize money) will soon be gone. The ITA has been actively seeking corporate sponsorship, and this is close to being finalised. This will allow monetary prizes to continue to be given for Best Play and Best Musical, and to other awards too. It is the committee's intention to expand the Finley Awards to include awards such as Best Actor, Best Actress, and more.
Once again, by having all of the adjudicators see all of the plays, then the aforementioned awards could be given with a degree of certainty.
The profile and value of the Finley Awards needs to be increased within the theatre community and amongst the general public. This could not be done under the old, outdated system. The system was changed before, it needed to be changed again. It's the responsibility of the ITA committee to manage the system and implement changes when needed. If this new system doesn't work or isn't accepted, further changes can be made. The worst mistake we could make would be to ignore the problem.
Letters have been sent to all member clubs containing more information about this new system. We recommend that all interested parties contact their club secretaries. Additionally, if your club would like ITA Representatives to come along to your next committee meeting to discuss these changes and answer all of your questions, please feel free to contact Kimberley Shaw on yak@git.com.au or 0403 438 390
The ITA Committee.
Melanie DeCull
Publicity Coordinator
Independent Theatre Association
[%sig%]
The ITA Committee is proud to announce its completely revised and updated Finley Awards adjudication system.
As posted on the ITA webpage, and in the ITA Link newsletter, the ITA Committee has been looking very closely at the adjudication process. We are aware that there have been problems with the system, we have listened to the feedback, and we have determined to make changes. No system will ever be 100% perfect, and we'll never please all the people all the time, but we believe that attempting change is better than doing nothing at all.
The major problem with the old system was a lack of both accountability and standardised marking. The entered productions could not be assessed in a standard way because all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. Three random adjudicators (from a pool of eleven) were sent to each entered production. The adjudicators individually scored the production, sent their marks to a coordinator, and never had to justify or discuss them again.
Adjudicators held two meetings per year. Invariably, because of the number of people involved, not all adjudicators were always in attendance at these meetings. This didn't matter much because discussion of plays and marks was rarely, if ever, entered into. The problem was that all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. They couldn't discuss them if they didn't see them.
To be fair, it's impossible for 11 adjudicators to see every play. In the distant past there was a team of three professional (ie paid) adjudicators who DID see every play and could thus compare them. Unfortunately, it didn't work in practice since adjudicators kept missing productions because of professional engagements. The only alternative at the time was to establish a pool of volunteer adjudicators. However, because of this, standardised marking became a casualty. Statistical attempts were made to "average" the marks but this was a far from ideal situation.
Ideally, if all the adjudicators saw all the productions, met regularly and discussed and justified their scores, perception of, and trust in the awards would improve dramatically. Realistically however, it's close to impossible for all 11 adjudicators to see EVERY production. Quite apart from the logistics of such an exercise, it's sincerely doubtful each club would gladly give away so many free tickets.
Our solution is to use a small, dedicated team of adjudicators. A team of four volunteer adjudicators will cover EVERY production, with a guarantee that each production will have at least three adjudicators in attendance. Shows will be discussed at regular meetings and marks will be justified & tabulated. Candidates for Adjudicators' Certificates would be noted throughout the year, instead of the previous end of the year, "Who wants to propose an award?" The adjudicators may not always agree but at least discussion is held. It's a better system than no discussion at all.
At each meeting, all marks will be put on the table and every adjudicator will be accountable for the marks that they have given. If an adjudicator has scored a play markedly differently to that of the other adjudicators, then that adjudicator will need to justify their marks. This process will allow for marks to be changed if the adjudicators feel that it is necessary to do so, after collaboration with the other adjudicators. Among other benefits this allows for adjudicators to be able to accurately and confidently produce a top ten plays list – as they have all seen and assessed all of the plays.
Because of the full schedule, and the necessary perception of lack of bias, none of the four adjudicators will be permitted to direct or produce a Finley-entered play during that year's term. If a club enters a play, and one of the adjudicators is actively involved in that club, they can see and mark the play but the other three adjudicators will write the comments to the club. There is no reason why all four couldn't judge the play, because all marks will be open and accountable. If an adjudicator is performing in an production, they obviously cannot mark that production. The other three adjudicators will score the production and the fourth will be ineligible for any individual awards.
Obviously this decision was painful because it meant cutting back on the number of adjudicators, all of whom we respect, admire and consider friends. This decision was made somewhat easier because as it was necessary to eliminate adjudicators who were directing (or otherwise unavailable for the entire year) it left us with a much smaller pool.
The adjudicators for 2004 are Jarrod Buttery, Sue Hicks, Kerri Hilton and Andrew Round. They represent a spread of experience and skills. We would be extremely pleased to hear from any adjudicators who would be interested in adjudicating within the new system in 2005. The new system is extremely demanding for an adjudicator, but we hope extremely rewarding as well.
We apologise for the inconvenience of making this change after the adjudication year has started and would like to assure all clubs and all entered productions that they have not been disadvantaged. The four adjudicators have seen all of the entered productions this year. All productions have been adjudicated using the same - new - system.
We would like to emphasise that this was not a rushed decision. Of course, if you do something too slowly, you're dragging your tail; if you do something too quickly, it's a knee-jerk response. However, the committee has been observing the Finley debate and discussing possibilities since January's Awards Night, and in earnest since the February AGM elected a new committee. The Finley Awards were thoroughly discussed at the March Committee Meeting - the first meeting of the new committee. The discussion went around the table. Every committee member was asked for their opinions and given the opportunity to speak on the proposed changes. When it came to a vote, the new system was overwhelmingly endorsed - no committee member voted against it. The entire committee recognised the need for improvement in the system, and acted to swiftly to implement the changes.
A second problem is that bank rates over the last few years have meant that the original Finley bequest (and the prize money) will soon be gone. The ITA has been actively seeking corporate sponsorship, and this is close to being finalised. This will allow monetary prizes to continue to be given for Best Play and Best Musical, and to other awards too. It is the committee's intention to expand the Finley Awards to include awards such as Best Actor, Best Actress, and more.
Once again, by having all of the adjudicators see all of the plays, then the aforementioned awards could be given with a degree of certainty.
The profile and value of the Finley Awards needs to be increased within the theatre community and amongst the general public. This could not be done under the old, outdated system. The system was changed before, it needed to be changed again. It's the responsibility of the ITA committee to manage the system and implement changes when needed. If this new system doesn't work or isn't accepted, further changes can be made. The worst mistake we could make would be to ignore the problem.
Letters have been sent to all member clubs containing more information about this new system. We recommend that all interested parties contact their club secretaries. Additionally, if your club would like ITA Representatives to come along to your next committee meeting to discuss these changes and answer all of your questions, please feel free to contact Kimberley Shaw on yak@git.com.au or 0403 438 390
The ITA Committee.
Melanie DeCull
Publicity Coordinator
Independent Theatre Association
[%sig%]
MelzSat, 27 Mar 2004, 09:37 am
THE ITA COMMITTEE HAS REVISED THE FINLEY AWARDS
The ITA Committee is proud to announce its completely revised and updated Finley Awards adjudication system.
As posted on the ITA webpage, and in the ITA Link newsletter, the ITA Committee has been looking very closely at the adjudication process. We are aware that there have been problems with the system, we have listened to the feedback, and we have determined to make changes. No system will ever be 100% perfect, and we'll never please all the people all the time, but we believe that attempting change is better than doing nothing at all.
The major problem with the old system was a lack of both accountability and standardised marking. The entered productions could not be assessed in a standard way because all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. Three random adjudicators (from a pool of eleven) were sent to each entered production. The adjudicators individually scored the production, sent their marks to a coordinator, and never had to justify or discuss them again.
Adjudicators held two meetings per year. Invariably, because of the number of people involved, not all adjudicators were always in attendance at these meetings. This didn't matter much because discussion of plays and marks was rarely, if ever, entered into. The problem was that all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. They couldn't discuss them if they didn't see them.
To be fair, it's impossible for 11 adjudicators to see every play. In the distant past there was a team of three professional (ie paid) adjudicators who DID see every play and could thus compare them. Unfortunately, it didn't work in practice since adjudicators kept missing productions because of professional engagements. The only alternative at the time was to establish a pool of volunteer adjudicators. However, because of this, standardised marking became a casualty. Statistical attempts were made to "average" the marks but this was a far from ideal situation.
Ideally, if all the adjudicators saw all the productions, met regularly and discussed and justified their scores, perception of, and trust in the awards would improve dramatically. Realistically however, it's close to impossible for all 11 adjudicators to see EVERY production. Quite apart from the logistics of such an exercise, it's sincerely doubtful each club would gladly give away so many free tickets.
Our solution is to use a small, dedicated team of adjudicators. A team of four volunteer adjudicators will cover EVERY production, with a guarantee that each production will have at least three adjudicators in attendance. Shows will be discussed at regular meetings and marks will be justified & tabulated. Candidates for Adjudicators' Certificates would be noted throughout the year, instead of the previous end of the year, "Who wants to propose an award?" The adjudicators may not always agree but at least discussion is held. It's a better system than no discussion at all.
At each meeting, all marks will be put on the table and every adjudicator will be accountable for the marks that they have given. If an adjudicator has scored a play markedly differently to that of the other adjudicators, then that adjudicator will need to justify their marks. This process will allow for marks to be changed if the adjudicators feel that it is necessary to do so, after collaboration with the other adjudicators. Among other benefits this allows for adjudicators to be able to accurately and confidently produce a top ten plays list – as they have all seen and assessed all of the plays.
Because of the full schedule, and the necessary perception of lack of bias, none of the four adjudicators will be permitted to direct or produce a Finley-entered play during that year's term. If a club enters a play, and one of the adjudicators is actively involved in that club, they can see and mark the play but the other three adjudicators will write the comments to the club. There is no reason why all four couldn't judge the play, because all marks will be open and accountable. If an adjudicator is performing in an production, they obviously cannot mark that production. The other three adjudicators will score the production and the fourth will be ineligible for any individual awards.
Obviously this decision was painful because it meant cutting back on the number of adjudicators, all of whom we respect, admire and consider friends. This decision was made somewhat easier because as it was necessary to eliminate adjudicators who were directing (or otherwise unavailable for the entire year) it left us with a much smaller pool.
The adjudicators for 2004 are Jarrod Buttery, Sue Hicks, Kerri Hilton and Andrew Round. They represent a spread of experience and skills. We would be extremely pleased to hear from any adjudicators who would be interested in adjudicating within the new system in 2005. The new system is extremely demanding for an adjudicator, but we hope extremely rewarding as well.
We apologise for the inconvenience of making this change after the adjudication year has started and would like to assure all clubs and all entered productions that they have not been disadvantaged. The four adjudicators have seen all of the entered productions this year. All productions have been adjudicated using the same - new - system.
We would like to emphasise that this was not a rushed decision. Of course, if you do something too slowly, you're dragging your tail; if you do something too quickly, it's a knee-jerk response. However, the committee has been observing the Finley debate and discussing possibilities since January's Awards Night, and in earnest since the February AGM elected a new committee. The Finley Awards were thoroughly discussed at the March Committee Meeting - the first meeting of the new committee. The discussion went around the table. Every committee member was asked for their opinions and given the opportunity to speak on the proposed changes. When it came to a vote, the new system was overwhelmingly endorsed - no committee member voted against it. The entire committee recognised the need for improvement in the system, and acted to swiftly to implement the changes.
A second problem is that bank rates over the last few years have meant that the original Finley bequest (and the prize money) will soon be gone. The ITA has been actively seeking corporate sponsorship, and this is close to being finalised. This will allow monetary prizes to continue to be given for Best Play and Best Musical, and to other awards too. It is the committee's intention to expand the Finley Awards to include awards such as Best Actor, Best Actress, and more.
Once again, by having all of the adjudicators see all of the plays, then the aforementioned awards could be given with a degree of certainty.
The profile and value of the Finley Awards needs to be increased within the theatre community and amongst the general public. This could not be done under the old, outdated system. The system was changed before, it needed to be changed again. It's the responsibility of the ITA committee to manage the system and implement changes when needed. If this new system doesn't work or isn't accepted, further changes can be made. The worst mistake we could make would be to ignore the problem.
Letters have been sent to all member clubs containing more information about this new system. We recommend that all interested parties contact their club secretaries. Additionally, if your club would like ITA Representatives to come along to your next committee meeting to discuss these changes and answer all of your questions, please feel free to contact Kimberley Shaw on yak@git.com.au or 0403 438 390
The ITA Committee.
Melanie DeCull
Publicity Coordinator
Independent Theatre Association
[%sig%]
The ITA Committee is proud to announce its completely revised and updated Finley Awards adjudication system.
As posted on the ITA webpage, and in the ITA Link newsletter, the ITA Committee has been looking very closely at the adjudication process. We are aware that there have been problems with the system, we have listened to the feedback, and we have determined to make changes. No system will ever be 100% perfect, and we'll never please all the people all the time, but we believe that attempting change is better than doing nothing at all.
The major problem with the old system was a lack of both accountability and standardised marking. The entered productions could not be assessed in a standard way because all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. Three random adjudicators (from a pool of eleven) were sent to each entered production. The adjudicators individually scored the production, sent their marks to a coordinator, and never had to justify or discuss them again.
Adjudicators held two meetings per year. Invariably, because of the number of people involved, not all adjudicators were always in attendance at these meetings. This didn't matter much because discussion of plays and marks was rarely, if ever, entered into. The problem was that all the adjudicators did not see all the productions. They couldn't discuss them if they didn't see them.
To be fair, it's impossible for 11 adjudicators to see every play. In the distant past there was a team of three professional (ie paid) adjudicators who DID see every play and could thus compare them. Unfortunately, it didn't work in practice since adjudicators kept missing productions because of professional engagements. The only alternative at the time was to establish a pool of volunteer adjudicators. However, because of this, standardised marking became a casualty. Statistical attempts were made to "average" the marks but this was a far from ideal situation.
Ideally, if all the adjudicators saw all the productions, met regularly and discussed and justified their scores, perception of, and trust in the awards would improve dramatically. Realistically however, it's close to impossible for all 11 adjudicators to see EVERY production. Quite apart from the logistics of such an exercise, it's sincerely doubtful each club would gladly give away so many free tickets.
Our solution is to use a small, dedicated team of adjudicators. A team of four volunteer adjudicators will cover EVERY production, with a guarantee that each production will have at least three adjudicators in attendance. Shows will be discussed at regular meetings and marks will be justified & tabulated. Candidates for Adjudicators' Certificates would be noted throughout the year, instead of the previous end of the year, "Who wants to propose an award?" The adjudicators may not always agree but at least discussion is held. It's a better system than no discussion at all.
At each meeting, all marks will be put on the table and every adjudicator will be accountable for the marks that they have given. If an adjudicator has scored a play markedly differently to that of the other adjudicators, then that adjudicator will need to justify their marks. This process will allow for marks to be changed if the adjudicators feel that it is necessary to do so, after collaboration with the other adjudicators. Among other benefits this allows for adjudicators to be able to accurately and confidently produce a top ten plays list – as they have all seen and assessed all of the plays.
Because of the full schedule, and the necessary perception of lack of bias, none of the four adjudicators will be permitted to direct or produce a Finley-entered play during that year's term. If a club enters a play, and one of the adjudicators is actively involved in that club, they can see and mark the play but the other three adjudicators will write the comments to the club. There is no reason why all four couldn't judge the play, because all marks will be open and accountable. If an adjudicator is performing in an production, they obviously cannot mark that production. The other three adjudicators will score the production and the fourth will be ineligible for any individual awards.
Obviously this decision was painful because it meant cutting back on the number of adjudicators, all of whom we respect, admire and consider friends. This decision was made somewhat easier because as it was necessary to eliminate adjudicators who were directing (or otherwise unavailable for the entire year) it left us with a much smaller pool.
The adjudicators for 2004 are Jarrod Buttery, Sue Hicks, Kerri Hilton and Andrew Round. They represent a spread of experience and skills. We would be extremely pleased to hear from any adjudicators who would be interested in adjudicating within the new system in 2005. The new system is extremely demanding for an adjudicator, but we hope extremely rewarding as well.
We apologise for the inconvenience of making this change after the adjudication year has started and would like to assure all clubs and all entered productions that they have not been disadvantaged. The four adjudicators have seen all of the entered productions this year. All productions have been adjudicated using the same - new - system.
We would like to emphasise that this was not a rushed decision. Of course, if you do something too slowly, you're dragging your tail; if you do something too quickly, it's a knee-jerk response. However, the committee has been observing the Finley debate and discussing possibilities since January's Awards Night, and in earnest since the February AGM elected a new committee. The Finley Awards were thoroughly discussed at the March Committee Meeting - the first meeting of the new committee. The discussion went around the table. Every committee member was asked for their opinions and given the opportunity to speak on the proposed changes. When it came to a vote, the new system was overwhelmingly endorsed - no committee member voted against it. The entire committee recognised the need for improvement in the system, and acted to swiftly to implement the changes.
A second problem is that bank rates over the last few years have meant that the original Finley bequest (and the prize money) will soon be gone. The ITA has been actively seeking corporate sponsorship, and this is close to being finalised. This will allow monetary prizes to continue to be given for Best Play and Best Musical, and to other awards too. It is the committee's intention to expand the Finley Awards to include awards such as Best Actor, Best Actress, and more.
Once again, by having all of the adjudicators see all of the plays, then the aforementioned awards could be given with a degree of certainty.
The profile and value of the Finley Awards needs to be increased within the theatre community and amongst the general public. This could not be done under the old, outdated system. The system was changed before, it needed to be changed again. It's the responsibility of the ITA committee to manage the system and implement changes when needed. If this new system doesn't work or isn't accepted, further changes can be made. The worst mistake we could make would be to ignore the problem.
Letters have been sent to all member clubs containing more information about this new system. We recommend that all interested parties contact their club secretaries. Additionally, if your club would like ITA Representatives to come along to your next committee meeting to discuss these changes and answer all of your questions, please feel free to contact Kimberley Shaw on yak@git.com.au or 0403 438 390
The ITA Committee.
Melanie DeCull
Publicity Coordinator
Independent Theatre Association
[%sig%]
Walter PlingeMon, 29 Mar 2004, 08:11 am
Re: THE REVISED & UPDATED FINLEY AWARDS
This new system sounds fair to me. I think it is essential that all judges see and evaluate a production - it's fairer this way. Everyone, no matter what they say, have their own personal biases and "favourites" - especially if they are heavily involved in the productions to be judged!
The Equity Guild Awards uses 3 judges who must ALL attend and evaluate the productions submitted. So, I guess if it's good enough for the professionals...
Good luck to the ITA and their new judging system - I hope it works well!
Angelique Malcolm
Class Act Theatre Inc.
crgwllmsTue, 30 Mar 2004, 09:52 pm
Re: I'd like to thank the Academy...
This all sounds pretty well-thought-out to me.
I especially like the bit about judges collaborating to discuss their thoughts. This ensures the marks are applied according to a similar scale by each judge, and is the way we agreed upon the winners when I was a judge for the WA Citizen of the Year Youth awards.
Someone will always take issue with the RESULTS...that's just the nature of awards. But having read all the objections to the previous system, and how this new one seeks to correct those problems, I don't think many will take issue with this METHOD of judging.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
I especially like the bit about judges collaborating to discuss their thoughts. This ensures the marks are applied according to a similar scale by each judge, and is the way we agreed upon the winners when I was a judge for the WA Citizen of the Year Youth awards.
Someone will always take issue with the RESULTS...that's just the nature of awards. But having read all the objections to the previous system, and how this new one seeks to correct those problems, I don't think many will take issue with this METHOD of judging.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
MelzWed, 31 Mar 2004, 03:48 pm
Re: THE REVISED & UPDATED FINLEY AWARDS
It's wonderful to see the positive feedback... please keep it coming...
Remember this is your forum and if there are any questions please feel free to ask...
Again I will remind everyone that if they would like ITA Representatives to come along to a clubs committee meeting to discuss and take questions regarding the revisions and updates, then please contact Kimberley Shaw on yak@git.com.au or 9291 5045.
Melanie DeCull
Publicity Coordinator
Independent Theatre Assoc. of WA
melaniedecull@bigpond.com
Keeping Community Theatre Alive....
[%sig%]
Remember this is your forum and if there are any questions please feel free to ask...
Again I will remind everyone that if they would like ITA Representatives to come along to a clubs committee meeting to discuss and take questions regarding the revisions and updates, then please contact Kimberley Shaw on yak@git.com.au or 9291 5045.
Melanie DeCull
Publicity Coordinator
Independent Theatre Assoc. of WA
melaniedecull@bigpond.com
Keeping Community Theatre Alive....
[%sig%]
Don AllenThu, 1 Apr 2004, 08:53 am
FINLEY AWARDS v2004
One of the great advantages in doing lighting is that you can stand back from a production and observe in an object sense, which is part of the lighting design process.
It would appear from the reduction in posting that the revised FINLEY AWARDS have incorporated most of the comments and suggestions from the 60+ posts and individual approaches and satisfied most observers.
Not a bad outcome in such a short timeframe as some committees seem to bury change or procrastinate forever.
It is more work for the four reviewers but also a fairer system that may flow onto the ITA member clubs for their internal adjudication.
Maybe we will need a larger venue for next years FINLAY AWARDS night.
Perhaps an INTERACT'04 workshop subject?
It would appear from the reduction in posting that the revised FINLEY AWARDS have incorporated most of the comments and suggestions from the 60+ posts and individual approaches and satisfied most observers.
Not a bad outcome in such a short timeframe as some committees seem to bury change or procrastinate forever.
It is more work for the four reviewers but also a fairer system that may flow onto the ITA member clubs for their internal adjudication.
Maybe we will need a larger venue for next years FINLAY AWARDS night.
Perhaps an INTERACT'04 workshop subject?
AHarwoodFri, 9 Apr 2004, 01:00 pm
Re: THE REVISED & UPDATED FINLEY AWARDS
Well in all, it doesn;t sound too bad. Means less organising of many adjudicators, justified marking schemes. Whats wrong with that?
I have always suported the idea of individual awards like Best Actor, Best Actress (I prefer the feminine word as it is in the dictionary and it holds prestige in tradition), best enesmble(where it is hard to distinguish lead rolesin the production), best chorus, best choreographer, best musical director, best stage manager, best set/lighting/sound (taking budgetary issues into mind), best musical, best play.
I also liked sub catagories like best fight scene, achievement of acting by a cast or cast member.
Some of the awards that have been popping up lately have been interesting but not something I really support - encouragement awards (give em second place) and some silly spot prizes poping up.
But overall the new format sounds ok to me. But thats just me.
[%sig%]
I have always suported the idea of individual awards like Best Actor, Best Actress (I prefer the feminine word as it is in the dictionary and it holds prestige in tradition), best enesmble(where it is hard to distinguish lead rolesin the production), best chorus, best choreographer, best musical director, best stage manager, best set/lighting/sound (taking budgetary issues into mind), best musical, best play.
I also liked sub catagories like best fight scene, achievement of acting by a cast or cast member.
Some of the awards that have been popping up lately have been interesting but not something I really support - encouragement awards (give em second place) and some silly spot prizes poping up.
But overall the new format sounds ok to me. But thats just me.
[%sig%]
crgwllmsFri, 9 Apr 2004, 01:54 pm
How about "Best Male Actress"...?
Anthony Harwood wrote:
>
> I have always suported the idea of individual awards like
> Best Actor, Best Actress (I prefer the feminine word as it is
> in the dictionary and it holds prestige in tradition)
I agree, Anthony. There's actually nothing politically incorrect about calling a 'female actor' an actress. It's a useful and honest distinction, and there is no suggestion of discrimination to distinguish between 'actor' and 'actress', any more than to distinguish by using 'male actor' and 'female actor'....in fact I think the latter is LESS politically correct!
The reason there is sexual-political imbalance is that we have no GENERIC word for 'someone who acts' and so if there is no gender specified, we default to the male word. In my opinion, THAT is politically incorrect.
There are so many inconsistencies in the English language, it's easy to get confused and miss the point. If we are talking about elephants, a male is a 'bull', a female is a 'cow' and a non-gender specific singular is an 'elephant'. But there are many many instances where the non-gender specific takes the male form by default, and that's where the discrimination is implied. (Actually, to continue the above example, if we are talking about cattle, the non-gender specific singular defaults to the female 'cow', but that's the only instance I can think of at present).
We can talk about a 'man' or a 'woman' but it seems unfair to talk of the entire race of humans as 'man'. It's a failing of our language, that it perpetuates the male-dominant paradigm from which it originated. So in the era of sexual equality, steps were taken to try and eliminate discrimination in our language (political 'correctness').
Where we miss the point is to assume a word like 'actress' is a politically incorrect distinction, and that all who act should be described using the same word. It's true, it would be fair to describe all with the same word...but that word should be non-gender specific, and NOT assume the male form.
So in actual fact, to call everyone 'actor' is quite politically incorrect....how ironic is that? There ought to be another word to call a non-gender specific person who acts....but the 'rules' of the English language start to turn in on you in a Catch 22, and we can't find anything more logical than 'actor'.
So I'm sorry I can't suggest a better solution; I just wanted to point out that the current trend is not a solution either, as many mistakenly believe.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> I have always suported the idea of individual awards like
> Best Actor, Best Actress (I prefer the feminine word as it is
> in the dictionary and it holds prestige in tradition)
I agree, Anthony. There's actually nothing politically incorrect about calling a 'female actor' an actress. It's a useful and honest distinction, and there is no suggestion of discrimination to distinguish between 'actor' and 'actress', any more than to distinguish by using 'male actor' and 'female actor'....in fact I think the latter is LESS politically correct!
The reason there is sexual-political imbalance is that we have no GENERIC word for 'someone who acts' and so if there is no gender specified, we default to the male word. In my opinion, THAT is politically incorrect.
There are so many inconsistencies in the English language, it's easy to get confused and miss the point. If we are talking about elephants, a male is a 'bull', a female is a 'cow' and a non-gender specific singular is an 'elephant'. But there are many many instances where the non-gender specific takes the male form by default, and that's where the discrimination is implied. (Actually, to continue the above example, if we are talking about cattle, the non-gender specific singular defaults to the female 'cow', but that's the only instance I can think of at present).
We can talk about a 'man' or a 'woman' but it seems unfair to talk of the entire race of humans as 'man'. It's a failing of our language, that it perpetuates the male-dominant paradigm from which it originated. So in the era of sexual equality, steps were taken to try and eliminate discrimination in our language (political 'correctness').
Where we miss the point is to assume a word like 'actress' is a politically incorrect distinction, and that all who act should be described using the same word. It's true, it would be fair to describe all with the same word...but that word should be non-gender specific, and NOT assume the male form.
So in actual fact, to call everyone 'actor' is quite politically incorrect....how ironic is that? There ought to be another word to call a non-gender specific person who acts....but the 'rules' of the English language start to turn in on you in a Catch 22, and we can't find anything more logical than 'actor'.
So I'm sorry I can't suggest a better solution; I just wanted to point out that the current trend is not a solution either, as many mistakenly believe.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
MelzFri, 9 Apr 2004, 10:47 pm
Gender...?
Well... wow...
As I read and generally agreed with all you were saying Craig... all I could think about was other languages... where in German, French and the like - everything has a gender - how does one presume that a coffee table or a chair is male or female, when it doesn't even breathe ??? that's ironic !!
I was writing an editorial for my club's newsletter today - and wanted to check spellings via google... i would type the 'actresses' name followed by a comma and then actor - eg., Jacki Weaver, actor - well SHE came up as an actor... i must admit that I didn't try - Jacki Weaver, actress... (please don't get into a spelling of Jacki with me - I found numerous versions and the one I went with was BOCS tix outlet).
However - personally - I don't believe it is discrimatory - actress is tried and true... and an actress should be recognised for her talent and be proud of her gender without being all feministic... be recognised for who we are...
cheers...
Melz
:-)
[%sig%]
As I read and generally agreed with all you were saying Craig... all I could think about was other languages... where in German, French and the like - everything has a gender - how does one presume that a coffee table or a chair is male or female, when it doesn't even breathe ??? that's ironic !!
I was writing an editorial for my club's newsletter today - and wanted to check spellings via google... i would type the 'actresses' name followed by a comma and then actor - eg., Jacki Weaver, actor - well SHE came up as an actor... i must admit that I didn't try - Jacki Weaver, actress... (please don't get into a spelling of Jacki with me - I found numerous versions and the one I went with was BOCS tix outlet).
However - personally - I don't believe it is discrimatory - actress is tried and true... and an actress should be recognised for her talent and be proud of her gender without being all feministic... be recognised for who we are...
cheers...
Melz
:-)
[%sig%]
crgwllmsSat, 10 Apr 2004, 12:45 am
Re: Gender..? ask a Gendarme
Melanie DeCull wrote:
>
> Well... wow...
>
> As I read and generally agreed with all you were saying
> Craig... all I could think about was other languages... where
> in German, French and the like - everything has a gender -
> how does one presume that a coffee table or a chair is male
> or female, when it doesn't even breathe ??? that's ironic !!
Well technically, that's not actually irony, but I get what you mean.
I can't imagine that those languages evolved from a more sexually egalitarian society than English did; in fact the current English language developed from many of the same sources and borrows much from both those languages. Can anyone who understands more than my highschool French and the few phrases I learnt from a German-speaking girlfriend tell me if their languages are perceived to be discriminatory? (ie do men or women object to the way the nouns have been assigned as masculine/feminine?)
Has there been a similar crusade of political correctness in those languages? Did they change all non-specific instances of 'he' to 'he/she'? I can't imagine the French deciding that 'waiter' and 'waitress' are offensive, and they should invent a new term 'waitperson', but again, in English there is no gender-neutral term...and the problem was always that we defaulted to the male term. In a culture where every noun has a gender, are such examples seen as problems? Is discriminatory language even an issue in languages other than English?
Perpetually perplexed,
Craig
>
> Well... wow...
>
> As I read and generally agreed with all you were saying
> Craig... all I could think about was other languages... where
> in German, French and the like - everything has a gender -
> how does one presume that a coffee table or a chair is male
> or female, when it doesn't even breathe ??? that's ironic !!
Well technically, that's not actually irony, but I get what you mean.
I can't imagine that those languages evolved from a more sexually egalitarian society than English did; in fact the current English language developed from many of the same sources and borrows much from both those languages. Can anyone who understands more than my highschool French and the few phrases I learnt from a German-speaking girlfriend tell me if their languages are perceived to be discriminatory? (ie do men or women object to the way the nouns have been assigned as masculine/feminine?)
Has there been a similar crusade of political correctness in those languages? Did they change all non-specific instances of 'he' to 'he/she'? I can't imagine the French deciding that 'waiter' and 'waitress' are offensive, and they should invent a new term 'waitperson', but again, in English there is no gender-neutral term...and the problem was always that we defaulted to the male term. In a culture where every noun has a gender, are such examples seen as problems? Is discriminatory language even an issue in languages other than English?
Perpetually perplexed,
Craig